328 H. G. Uaverby—Bepty to 'Histy. and Geogr. of Bengal, No. HI.' [No. 3, 



tions in Khurasan, we must allow some little time for the Sultan to reach 

 Ghaznin, and he would then even require a month or two to prepare for a 

 campaign in India ; and besides, even if Tie were ready before, he could not 

 move towards India during the height of the hot season. There were the 

 same six mighty rivers to be crossed, and all unfordable at that period ; and 

 all these things being thought of, it was utterly impossible for Sultan Mu'izz- 

 ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, to have entered India, at the earliest, before the 

 middle of September or October — the end of the ninth or tenth month of 

 588 H., previous to which period no man in his senses, would have attemp- 

 ted to march from Ghaznin, to cross the six rivers, and advance into India. 



Then followed the battle with Eae Pithora, Kutb-ud-Din is left in 

 charge at Kuhram, and the Sultan prepared to return home again. 



These being the facts, how is it possible, on Mr. Thomas's " best autho- 

 rities," that Kutb-ud-Din could have occupied Dihli in 587 h. ? 



I am glad also to find that General Cunningham, on his visit to Dihli 

 in 1862, considered that 589 h. and not 587 h. was the correct date on the 

 Mindrah — not of " Qutbuddin Aibeg," about which so many reams of 

 paper have been written, but of a wholly different Kutb, respecting whom 

 see note 6, page 621, to my Translation. I refer to the date on this 

 Mindrah about which " doctors disagree," and with regard to which Mr. 

 Thomas would fix on 587 h. for the occupation of Dihli, and so all other 

 dates must be made to suit it. I suppose, however, that all the " best 

 authorities" never considered how it could be possible for Sultan Mu'izz- 

 ud-Din to be defeated by Eae Pithora just before the hot season of 587 

 H., to take " a year's repose" [Thomas], again enter India, be occupied 

 some time even then against Eae Pithora before finally overthrowing him 

 [according to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir also], leave Kutb-ud-Din at Mirath, retire 

 again from India, for Kutb-ud-Din, subsequent to all this, to occupy 

 Dihli, build a great Mosque, upon which [notwithstanding the address of 

 the President of the Archaeological Section at the Oriental Congress of 

 1874] Musalman artizans brought from different parts of Asia were em- 

 ployed, and all these events to have happened in the one year of 587 h. ! 

 The idea is simply preposterous. 



It occurs to me, on considering this subject further, that the inscrip- 

 tion on the fourth circlet of the lower storey of the Mindrah as given in 

 Thomas [Pathan Kings, pages 21-22] refers not to Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muham- 

 mad, son of Sam, if the name given is correct, but to his elder brother. 

 It will be found at pages 368 and 370 of my Translation, and in the cor- 

 responding places in the original, that the elder brother and suzerain of 

 Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam, was first called Muhammad and 

 his title was Shams-ud-Din, and that the younger brother was also called 

 Muhammad and his title was Shihab-ud-Din. The first brother after he 



m- 



